Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Michael Poole]

Tomas Neme writes:

>>     A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be
>>     used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
>>     a certain result.
>>     -- US Code, Title 17, Section 101
>
> so?

People keep arguing that the signature is somehow not part of the
kernel or not subject to copyright law.  I suspect they do not realize
how broad the legal definition of "computer program" is.

> Not GPL related, but casino machine software that needs to be approved
> by the casino regulation office in Argentina need to provide source,
> compiling instructions AND binaries, and the binaries must pass a diff
> check. This is impossible without a hacked compiler since the
> timestamps WILL differ.
>
> Just an example that legality doesn't always comply with itself, and
> even less make sense.

This discussion is about copyright and the GPL, not legal quirks.  I
am aware of a large number of silly results reached by law.

> plus, and I repeat myself.. the program comes with no warranties whatsoever.
>
> and if your complains are purely moral, see it this way: if TiVo
> didn't sign their kernel, digital cable providers wouldn't give them
> their hash keys, and they wouldn't be able to show HD signals,
> rendering them useless, and making them go bankrupt... so they'd go
> BSD, because they ARE a company after all, and they are after The
> Moneys..
>
> no?

The GPL does not guarantee anyone a viable business model.  Following
it is not conditional on profitability.  It is only conditional on
exercising rights that are granted by the GPL.

Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/